Sick Day Open Thread
Hey, guys. I'm sick, and somewhat pudding-brained. The essay I planned to write deserves better thought than I can give it at this moment.
I made a comment yesterday that Gulfgal, Ellen, and Snapple BC thought was worth turning into an essay. I'm going to set it here for discussion. Hopefully, a more ordinary Open Thread will be on its way to you next Wednesday!
This comment was made in response to an article by Bob Borosage of Campaign for America's Future fame. For those of you that don't know CAF, they are, or were six years ago, the best of the establishment DC non-profits, with all the bad and good that implies. They were the last big liberal NGO I had any dealings with.
The article deals with, really, allotments of political and moral capital: who is going to get credibility, and who gets to be the fall guy for the severe decline of the Democratic party. For those of you who have been paying attention to such things, there has, over the past couple of months, been a move toward turning Hillary Clinton heel. A "heel turn," in wrestling parlance, means taking someone who has been championed as a good guy and rewriting their character to make them a bad guy. Apparently, a few months ago, someone up amongst the powers that be figured out that Hillary simply can't be made to function as a good guy in the public perception, so they are finally heel-turning her.
However, apparently there is no consensus on this amongst the powerful. This is a rare moment when the monolith cracks and you see warring factions. There's a faction that wants to blame Hillary; there's another faction that wants to preserve Hillary as a good guy/gal, and blame Obama.
That's where Borosage positions himself in his recent article in The Nation. https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-tries-to-explain-what-...
It's a cleverly written essay, because it looks, at the outset, like he's criticizing Hillary. And, in fact, he is, though I would say he does so gingerly:
Part of this stems from her own admitted inadequacies as a candidate. Her “message”—poll-driven and focus-grouped to death—lacked authenticity. The book is full of 20/20 hindsight concerning what she woulda, shoulda, coulda done or said but didn’t. She wrote that she constantly suppressed her own instincts because of focus-group findings or staff cautions. Most revealing was the scene her publisher released as part of promo for the book: the debate where Trump acted like a “creep” stalking her across the stage. It was “one of those moments,” she wrote, “where you wish you could hit pause and ask everyone watching, ‘Well, what would you do?’ Do you stay calm or turn as say ‘Back up you creep.’”
Hit pause and poll the audience? Why not just react humanly? She was too disciplined, packaged, and cautious for that.
But look past that mild criticism and you get quotations like:
Hillary Clinton’s book-length reflection on the 2016 presidential race, What Happened, struggles to answer the haunting question of how a highly experienced candidate with a massive political machine lost to Donald Trump and his vile clown campaign.
I doubt very much that the question is "haunting" to the nearly 2/3 of the American population that disliked or distrusted Hillary Clinton on Election Day. In fact, it's probably only "haunting" to Clinton supporters, which Borosage clearly is. The words "highly experienced candidate," even when modified by "with a massive political machine," shows that he is; Hillary's experience, her competence was the steadiest drumbeat of her campaign apart from the wounded victim of sexism pose.
Clinton accepts responsibility for her loss, and allows that she might have “missed a lot of chances.” Most of the book, however, is about casting blame and settling scores: Putin did it, Comey did it, and so did Bernie, the media, Fox News, sexism, Clinton fatigue, Electoral College, partisan loyalty, voter suppression, and many other factors. With Trump losing the popular vote and drawing an political inside straight to win three critical states by 77,000 total votes, thus winning the Electoral College, any of these plausibly might have made the difference. But as Hillary admits, none helps explain how the contest with Trump’s bizarre candidacy was close in the first place.
"Clinton accepts responsibility for her loss?" In what universe? Aside from the multiple times and ways she has blamed everyone else, even the media and the DNC, who might as well have had Ready For Hillary imprinted on their corporate logos during 2016, the very fact that "Most of the book, however, is about casting blame and settling scores," should make it pretty obvious that Clinton doesn't accept responsibility for her loss.
Here's the quotation that made me write my original response to Borosage:
Of far greater importance is the credibility problem that establishment Democrats suffer generally. Clinton’s loss can be treated as idiosyncratic, but under Obama Democrats lost over 1,000 state legislative seats and control of both the House and the Senate. Putin, Comey, and Bernie didn’t do that. Hillary isn’t to blame for that.
And here's my original response:
Isn't she, Mr. Borosage? Not even a little bit?
I admit the President of Hope and Change is primarily responsible--that is, if you're looking for a politician to take responsibility, rather than the forces that are really in charge of our government, and which probably give politicians few options if they want to 1)survive, 2)keep their jobs. The most truthful thing to say is probably that the wealthy, with their control of the media character assassination machine, and the military industrial complex, with its control of an actual assassination machine--whether you think that machine has ever been pointed at an American politician or not, it undeniably has assassinated lots of people, and continues to do so--are responsible. They are the ones who are in control of American politics, along with some assorted bullies from overseas, in places like Saudi Arabia and Israel. They are the ones who keep America on this horrible, suicidal trajectory, because it gives them maximum wealth and power. They are the ones who will allow no diversion from that trajectory.
But OK, let's say you don't want to talk about that, for fear of being called a conspiracy theorist; say you don't want to be, or hire, the investigative reporter who looks into that--assuming one could be found willing to take the risks. Let's pretend that politicians are the ones who control American politics, and not their paymasters, nor their overseers, even though both Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi have stated publicly that it's dangerous for a politician to oppose the will of the CIA. Let's pretend the big machine is controlled by politicians.
Does Hillary Clinton really have nothing to do with voter disillusionment about the Democratic Party? Is it all Obama's fault?
What you don't ask is why voters chose Obama, who came out of nowhere, over Hillary, the candidate of continuity (are you really buying the idea that she was "pigeonholed" into that notion by external forces?) In other words, why, in 2008, was Hillary not seen as a "change" from George W. Bush?
Could it be because the Clintons had spent from 1992-2000, and then again from 2002-2008, advocating for every economic and military policy the Republicans did? I don't much like Republicans, Mr. Borosage, but I have to admit that they had reason to be upset in the 90s, upset because Mr. Clinton was stealing all their policy positions and remaking the Democratic Party in their image. Because our insane duopolistic system requires the parties to appear different from one another, or cease to be relevant, the inevitable conclusion of this triangulation was for more and more extremist Republican politicians to take power in the Republican party. The Republicans really only had three choices: 1) become extremists, 2) triangulate to the left, 3)cease to be politically relevant. They wouldn't triangulate to the left for the same reason the Democrats won't return to the left: they'd lose all their big donors. It took a political neophyte like Trump to do something as politically reckless as that, at least on a couple of issues (he ran on an anti-globalism that you could, if you squinted hard, interpret as anti-corporatism; he was opposed to regime change and intervention in others' civil wars; he spoke up, a little bit, for Americans at least keeping their jobs). But encouraging extremist Republicans in order to be able to remain a Democrat and keep some putative moral high ground while actually acting as a mouthpiece for every billionaire willing to send money your way is an old, old Clinton strategy. The "Pied Piper" strategy was, in that sense, only new in that the corporate media was actually issued explicit instructions to participate in a strategy the Clintons have been engaging in and profiting from all along.
And yes, Mr. Borosage, Hillary was not just a ride-along on this trip. She was a willing, active partner who took part repeatedly in advancing her husband's political aims. Later, as a senator, she did nothing--literally nothing--to advance a more left-wing, a more populist, or even a more lawful set of policy goals. Tell me one thing George W. Bush did that she led the charge against--as you think a person might if she was preparing to run for President as a change candidate. Try to think of one horrible Bush policy she publicly opposed.
Like hell she has no responsibility for this.
Comments
that's a pretty heady essay
for pudding-brain. Hope you feel better soonly! When has the notion of personal responsibility (fallen) out of favour? My own example of pudding brain
One reason to hold people responsible
for what they have done, is to prevent their harmful actions from being repeated. That is a basic thing society has always done. If your kid steals, you hold him responsible, impress upon him that that behavior is not acceptable. I understand it may be an exercise in futility to try and guide people's behavior into being socially acceptable, but that is the main function of having a civil society.
It's so simple. Holding people responsible for their actions is fundamental.
This is why our society is falling apart. People in positions of authority have lost their credibility because they have shown themselves to be dishonorable.
The main reason
to hold people responsible is to show them that the rest of us know what they did. This is supposed to be the deterrent for a repeat of that same action by said person or someone else who wants to try the same thing. Of course we know that lately our socially accepted and implicitly agreed-upon deterrents have not been working. Still I am not ready to give the anti-social impulses of the PTB full rein.
personal responsibility
used to be a behaviour indicator of a mature individual. As a youngster, I was favourably impressed by people that displayed this action. Not necessarily falling on one's sword, but admission of having made a mistake and owning up to the consequences. Role modelling, to a developing mind, is important.
By having so many flagrantly disregarding social norms, especially our elected representatives, unravels the social fabric, as you so well described. If our leaders can disregard laws with impunity, the rest of us are less likely to maintain a moral compass.
If lying is an acceptable norm, the spirit of the masses suffers. Like you, I refuse to allow myself to lower my standards to that level.
Used car salesmen.
Has the status of the corporate media devolved to equal that of the used car salesman yet? Journalism is just another example of a profession in a position of authority rapidly loosing all claim on credibility. The same goes for the health care industry, the pharmaceutical industry, our educational system, etc.
So yes, I agree with you. Things are unraveling because our institutions and people in positions of authority are not interested in what is beneficial for a healthy society. They will never take responsibility for anything that hurts our society because helping our society is not their goal.
It is in our interest though, to hold them responsible, because for us to just let their bad behavior and actions go, hurts us in the long run. Hence, all this talk.
On the bright side though, JS's EB yesterday had a very nice link about how the Norwegians and Swedes took control of their institutions and insisted on making them live up to their responsibility to foster a healthy society.
Norwegians and Swedes
insist on responsible behavior from those in positions of authority. http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/how-swedes-and-norwegians-broke-t...
Hat-tip joe S. in his EB
@randtntx
I dunno if they ought to be rated that high - a used car salesman at least has to produce proof of there actually being a vehicle physically present at some point in order to sell it to the public, whatever shape it may be in.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
True.
The MSM reason for existence is to provide the news and information. What we are getting is propaganda and B.S. so yes, they don't even produce their equivalent of a car.
.
Every news organization that spreads disinformation should be laughed out of existence.
@QMS That's what this
That's what this place is about--maintaining a space where lies are not acceptable.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
@randtntx The bailout. The
The bailout. The bailout. Dear gods, the bailout.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal No kidding. That was
No kidding. That was THE telling moment. We didn't need a second term. We should have been done.
@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
Thanks so much for giving us this essay while being so sick - and I'd love to be as 'pudding-headed' as you may feel while ill when I'm having a good day, because that essay is 'sweet'! Be well fast, both for your own sake and because you're needed as one of the treasured essential voices of reason in this haven of sanity!
Although I do personally feel that that the Two-Faced Trade-Off Corporate Party shift 'to the right' (into deeper and more destructively pathological territory further enriching and empowering the few at everyone else's expense) was actually planned incremental change into full-blown fascism, as indicated by everything from the Powell Memo on... and before actually...
But 30, 40 or 50 years ago, would declarations that US politicians, corporate interests and billionaires were all 'above the law' and could do anything they pleased to anyone they pleased, at home and everywhere in the world in other people's countries, without repercussion, have passed muster publicly? How about 20, in the mid or late '90's?
Less is currently covered up as well just at the moment, although censorship and other suppression increases and encroaches amid the to-be-blinding blizzard of official government/corporate/subverted once-left media propaganda even as we are buried in evidence of lies, corruption and oncoming deadly results from many sources.
Time and again, more and increasing evil has been forgiven, forgotten and more and increasingly rewarded. Hardly surprising that evil prospers with its stolen power and wealth while the rest of us - in many cases conditioned into acceptance - starve...
Once again, lest we forget, Creosote's link:
https://cassiopaea.org/cass/political_ponerology_lobaczewski.htm
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
I agree
And since Hillary claims she is accepting the reponsibility I'm willing to give it to her. I held her responsible for her past decisions by not voting for her. I hold the entire Democratic party responsible for their past decisions by not voting for them.
Gosh... actions have consequences. Whodathunk?
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
@SnappleBC Same here.
Same here.
"Actions have consequences"
Except they don't. These people are still lurking around wielding power and influence when their actions should have banished them from any access to that long ago. Yet they are still here, poisoning the well.
@randtntx
Too true! (Emphasis mine.)
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/dick-cheney-trump-surrogate-232746
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
@QMS Hey, QMS. Thanks for the
Hey, QMS. Thanks for the kind words.
Hopefully, last night was the worst of it.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
She ran for Senate in NY! But was tentative. In NY!!! From NYC!
Politicians like squiggly lines. Jump over to the other side on some stuff; keep the edges fuzzy. Bernie drew a blue line. That may march beyond him. I am not into identity politics. I am even appalled JFK let his brother be Atty General. And I was only 7 y/o then, all retrospect.
I am gaining trepidation about my gall bladder removal. Symptoms were bad last night after rotisserie chicken. I may have to do initial surgeon trip by myself. It will not be done that day. But I am not over my longest hospitalization yet. An hour's-+ drive for another seems like it could be relieving. So was childbirth, cynically.
And my mouse does not curse now. I think I have a virgin one.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
@riverlover Am sending good thoughts
Am sending good thoughts your way, riverlover. Keep us posted.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
good, loving and healing thoughts to you
Been there, done that. Sending good, loving and healing thoughts to you!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
@riverlover
Best of luck with the gall-bladder, the surgery (inclusive of the drive) and the cursorless mouse. In the latter case, have you considered threatening it with tail removal? That might at least make it swear a bit.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
the hell with the $hill
I'm for calling her out as a corporatist, cheater, liar, and election manipulator.
Her book has her back in the limelight. It's time to turn out the lights on her, and stop the cyclic debate so we can focus on forward progressive momentum.
Hope you start feeling well soon CSTMS. Have a good day everybody.
(new intercepted podcast is out today)
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
@Lookout I think what's at issue
I think what's at issue here (among other things) is how we interpret the history of the past 37 years. Borosage's argument erases history up to about 2000; we start with evil Republicans in power, then Obama comes in to save the day, then he fails and voters lose faith and it's all his fault.
Certainly getting everybody to believe in "hope and change" and inspiring civic fervor across the country, only to serve them up more Republican policy, and even to expand and sustain the policies of the previous president, whose perfidy led to the desire for hope and change in the first place, certainly all that disillusioned the voters. Of course it did. What's ridiculous is taking it out of its historical context. The effort to get Obama to take the blame for more than thirty years of Democratic party policy gets me as close to sympathetic to him as possible.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
hope and change
30 years of Dem party policy -- most, and the worst, of which were made by the Clintons.
My best thoughts to you for swift recovery from your illness, CSTMS!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
@thanatokephaloides Thanks, than!
Thanks, than!
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Hope you feel better soon.
Get some extra rest, put your feet up, drink lots of water, eat healthy foods, get some more rest.
@randtntx Yeah, I'm starting to
Yeah, I'm starting to think that the day spent computer gaming yesterday was too strenuous, and I should have been sleeping!
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
With my various health issues (that I try to tame)
lack of sleep, or fretting about lack of sleep, is a major deal. Backing up on yourself when feeling off is a start. And make sure to feed the dogs or cats.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
I hadn't thought of Hillary in political terms, it seems.
My beef with her is strictly foreign policy, specifically Libya. I realize that she is naught but a pathetic tool of the Neocon Deep State regime, but her depravity still shocks me. In the years that followed the Libya debacle, the blowback continues daily, as waves of humanity continue to pour out of there, many people dying before they can reach safety. I could never get past her gall to show her face anywhere in the world, let alone to run for President.
Actually, I'm reluctant to credit her with any agency in the matter deserving regard either way. Her soul is a grotesque monstrosity, in my view, something led around on a chain in some political nightmare of a circus. It's the people who would run a thing like that for President and support it :::shudder::: who are the authors of the Party's doom. I was appalled that American Democrats were used so badly in that fateful election.
But a couple of things you said made new wrinkles in my brain. I knew them, but I hadn't felt them before.
It was right there in plain sight for voters to consider.
This was also never discussed, but was clearly influential in the Left's tepid view of Clinton.
That burns. But what really got me was your insight that Hillary moved to the Right to influence-peddle to big donors. And that forced Republicans to the extreme Right in order to remain relevant.
And neither Party will move Left because there is no big money to be found there.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
@Pluto's Republic Her soul is a grotesque
Her soul is a grotesque monstrosity, in my view, something led around on a chain in some political nightmare of a circus. It's the people who would run a thing like that for President and support it :::shudder::: who are the authors of the Party's doom.
I feel this way too. Actually, I feel this way about all the overlords and their primary puppets. I didn't know we had that many psychopath parts-per-million.
What you don't ask is why voters chose Obama, who came out of nowhere, over Hillary, the candidate of continuity. In other words, why, in 2008, was Hillary not seen as a "change" from George W. Bush?
It was right there in plain sight for voters to consider.
The voters in this country are not as stupid as the powers-that-be think they are.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I wonder if Obama didn't do his best to sabotage her.
Pushing TPP and Loretta Lynch cover-ups should also be counted on the con side of the ledger.
Frankly, Scarlett, I hope the Obamas and Clintons blow each other to hell and back. One dirtier, slimier, and more self-serving than the other.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
@dkmich To answer the question:
To answer the question: "Who's to blame for the decline of the Democratic Party?" requires an honest accounting of the past 37 years, especially the years 1984-2010. Blaming Obama, the most recent of the puppets, conveniently erases roughly thirty years of reasons voters don't trust the Democratic Party. That's not to say that Obama doesn't carry some horrible guilt. Of course he does. But I care less about which specific individual we blame and more about an honest accounting of how we got here.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
The decline of the party is easy - Bill Cinton.
I was speculating about pure spite - sabotage by Obama on the Clintons.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Hillary is a perfect 1%er. A Shark Movie Hero.
She represents everything about them PERFECTLY. Of course the 1% want her to keep being the good guy.
It's like watching a really bad horror movie, like say, "Avalanche Sharks" or "3-headed Shark Attack", where the main "Hero" is somebody you have no idea WHY he is the hero. And then you realize that the writer really thinks that this guy is heroic.
Yes, that Narcissism, petty demands for obedience, and idiotic plans that do nothing except kill off other people, are all seen as heroic by the people shelling out the story.
This is the point at which you have to decide whether it's worth watching anymore. At least with Sharknado it's at least slightly fun and you get to watch ludicrous and hilarious over the top stunts. With this, it's more like, "Guy Jumps off Front of Boat with Axe." Yeah, decent, but it's been done. And it's been done better.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAuIXCDd2Fw]
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
@detroitmechworks Well, it's a bit like
Well, it's a bit like this:
Except the 1% are Ron Howard, the politicians are Fonzie, and I guess we're the waterskis.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Hey, guys.
Well, it definitely is the flu.
Phew.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
That's a lousy break.
Stay with us if you can. We must focus on your speedy recovery.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
Good morning, CStMS. Sorry about the flu. As to the
Hill & Bill show - I once stumbled across an old DLC thing praising and promoting their shining stars. First and foremost was Hillary. We'll never know if she supported Bill, or drove him.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
If Hillary was that upset about Trump 'creeping her out' during
the debate, and if she truly believed the things that she said about him in her book, then why did she go to the parties that were held after he was sworn in?
If I was that creeped out by a person, I wouldn't go withing 50 miles of him. But of course this was just another sham election ploy that those two candidates played on the electorate.
In real life all member of both parties are close friends with each other, but they have to play the game to the rubes.
As I have been saying, another take on the Harlem Globetrotters and the Washington Generals. Even the referee is on this scam.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
@snoopydawg Well, there is that
Well, there is that picture from Trump's wedding. All four of them look pretty damned convivial to me. Then there's Bill's famous phone call to Trump...
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
@snoopydawg
Lol, Hillary appears to think that anyone challenging her in a political contest - or bringing up any uncomfortable questions about her various behaviours - is personally stalking her.
Can you imagine Presidential candidate, Dr. Jill Stein, after having been arrested after showing up at a Presidential debate, hauled off by police and kept hand-cuffed to a chair until well after the debates finished, with no access to a phone or the televised debates, attributing this to sexism?
In the privatized electoral system of the US, not only the 'political parties' supplying the 'choices' of the public for public office can do as they please, but the private sponsors of public Presidential debates... complete with the public's very own police and public funding used to create special facilities to hold large numbers of the public if peacefully protesting the set-up to maintain the Two-Corporate-Party Trade-Off to the satisfaction of The Psychopaths and Parasites That Be against multiple 'Third Parties', the term itself indicating the conditioned 'normalization' of the 'inevitable' and enforced two-party restriction in the whole set-up.
(Emphasis mine.)
http://www.rawstory.com/2012/10/green-party-candidate-police-handcuffed-...
Hillary and other highly-paid corporate political puppets, like the billionaires and corporate self-interests now increasingly moving directly into government, are fine with this treatment for non-corporate political candidates, of course.
Non-corporate parties are just small-time competition to be crushed in order to corner the market on the profitable sale - and extinction of the very concept - of the public good.
(Emphasis mine)
http://lwv.org/press-releases/statement-nancy-m-neuman-president-league-...
Statement by Nancy M. Neuman, President, League of Women Voters
10/03/1988 | by LWV
There can be no debate over the non-existent state of democracy in America.
So, we all just hope for regime change, or what?
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
a little woman's outsider view on Hillary Clinton...
who has no detail knowledge, just remembers some visuals about her.
Once upon the time there was a very competitive, energetic, politically highly motivated student and she fell in love with another less competitive, less energetic, politically highly intelligent and motivated story teller and smooth talker, who wanted to be like JFK. Both decided to "go into political careers". She used him, he let her ride on his side. She was soo intelligent and he liked that too. And she loved him for those thoughts of his. Isn't it great to have a man, who sees you as very intelligent? Sure feels good, no?
So she decided to ride on his coattails. She was so much determined, that even when she saw, who he was, she decided to not see him as what he was and went on the using his political talent. She decided to be in denial about his not so clearly talented life-choices and values and morals in his private life. Wasn't important enough to consider. Who cares, no? Well, some people do care about those things and show back-bone to deal with them.
She did not achieve politically anythng on her own merits, always only in combination with his career. What's so great about that?
There was from the very beginning a "gender" competition between him and her (in her mind). He couldn't care less about that and only had a slightly arrogantly disinterested smile on his face when she declared she is not a cookie baking little woman, who sits at his side and have nice coffee-table talks with other female adjuncts to their male political partners. She definitely had a huge problem with her own role as a woman from the very beginning, even as students. She still has it to this day. Her book is probably the best proof. (Haven't read it and don't intend to, but from what I read about it).
They both knew it, they didn't care about it, they played their "political couple" perfectly, one more engaged and determined than the other.
If she had been a person on her own, she would have dropped Bill Clinton when it became clear what a slimy he was as a private man. She didn't. Even during the disgusting times of the Monica Lewisnky story, she bite her tongue, may be cried privately and was deeply hurt, but she didn't budge. If she had been such a great independent woman, she would have divorced him right there in the White House. Everything is possible in America, right? So, why not that as well?
But she blamed the media and the right-wing conspiracy of character assassination of Bill Clinton to destroy both their reputation and careers. (Of course there is something to that point as well, but that doesn't negate the facts about both their characters' failures).
They laughed it off in public. But it wasn't a laughing matter. Actually it showed exactly how coward and dependent she was on him. She became the 'big woman', who sat at his side, backing 'political cookies', who failed to achieve what she wanted to achieve.
Her mysterious private surroundings which included unsolved mysteries about friends, who ended up dead, and many strange financial "who knows what they did with that money" dealings. You know what's so great about that?
I think the couple got 'nicer' while he aged. And they showed a lot of love for their child. I don't hate them, I think characterwise they are both weak. But it has been clear from the very beginning that both sold out moral values for political gains no matter what. They would walk over dead bodies to achieve their goals. It's pretty clear now that they both failed, she more than him.
That's about it. And it was easily visible and easily to understand to the public.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Great summary, mimi, thanks.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --